# Re: Is Existentialism an obsolete philosophy? ...Similarity to religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2010, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-is-existentialism-an-obsolete-philosophy-similarity-to-religion/544237 "2010-06-23T14:04:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 236
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-is-existentialism-an-obsolete-philosophy-similarity-to-religion/544237/236 "2011-02-04T20:28:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No, they’re not. If you deny that terms like _meaning_ are ego dependent there’s nowhere else to go with the discussion. What is the _meaning_ of a hydrogen atom becoming a helium atom somewhere inside the Sun? If you assert a _meaning_, it should be universal, and we know that the way you mean it, or the way that Existentialism meant it, it was centered around the human experience, which makes it self-centered and anthropocentric. > [@](#): > > What the fuck does this even mean? You want to play “athier than thou” with me, is that it? _Meanings_ are heavily associated with various religions and their version of the _purpose_ of human existence. That’s what it means - it’s a mostly theistic term. > [@](#): > > What “definition” would that be? Cite! The definition of falseness when impossible to show validity. That one. All religious claims are false and human intelligence established that fact a very long time ago. > [@](#): > > _Not_ that I’m agreeing that that is _all_ that emotions or their gratification are, BTW. There’s a cognitive aspect to emotions that goes way beyond just the chemical, into the computational. > > But still, the question remains: And…? As a biological byproduct, emotions are more similar to sweat rather than to logic or reason. They probably have a functional purpose, or more likely they are discarded neuro-chemical excretions, or both. A philosophy attempting to comprehend the universe has to be independent of such incidental factors as the waste of a biological being at some far away corner of the cosmos. That’s why Existentialism is obsolete. > [@](#): > > “Discovery of the laws of Nature” is a purely human activity. The Laws don’t care if they get discovered or not. We don’t know that yet. It’s possible that intelligence and awareness are intrinsic qualities of matter and energy. > [@](#): > > Human beings are biological and social organisms. > Our state of mind matters to the success of our activities (by “our” I mean myself and other humans, of course. Not any Vulcans in this thread :dubious:), so any attempts to address social/emotional issues matter to the success of finding out these Laws. Not at all. We don’t care how frustrated Newton was about his failure to prove his occult beliefs. Newton has to be separated from the truth he discovered because truth is independent of humans. > [@](#): > > Conclusion - “emotional gratification,” in the sense of individual humans wanting to establish a meaningful inner life for themselves, is not “trivial” but is deeply necessary to the success of all forms of human endeavour. That’s borderline religious talk and truth is incompatible with religion. A positive psychological state is always preferable, of course, but the factor of human existence should not bias philosophical questions. Otherwise the endeavor becomes something like an Oprah talk show. And that’s why Existentialism is obsolete. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-is-existentialism-an-obsolete-philosophy-similarity-to-religion/544237)._